Featured Article

Rotterdam’s Waterfront: a grand vision & a political consensus

Rotterdam is a city of just under 600,000 inhabitants. It is the main
port of the Netherlands and has a long maritime tradition. In the 19th
Century, the city grew rapidly as migrants from rural areas arrived to
work in the expanding docklands, which were primarily situated on the
south side of the city, directly opposite to the city centre. The river
quickly divided the city between the prosperous northern half, with its
historic economic, commercial and cultural heart, and the southern half,
which was dominated by shipping, industry and working-class
inhabitants. By the 1970s, containerisation had resulted in the existing
harbours being too small for the new ships, and this, combined with
other economic and technological changes resulted in the port shifting
westward, and the old harbour, with its associated neighbourhoods,
falling into steep decline. Since the 1980s, the city has used large
flagship projects, events and the lure of the ‘creative class’ in order
to reverse its fortunes and transform its waterfront.

While this
story is specific to Rotterdam, it is one which is repeated in countless
harbour cities throughout the world. The specific neighbourhoods and
industries may vary, but this could easily be Baltimore, Glasgow,
Bilbao, Genoa and many more. What I would like focus on here is the last
few decades, and the ways in which the unique visions and political
structures in Rotterdam have created a new waterfront, centred around a
development called the Kop van Zuid (English: Head of the South). This
is a project which other cities often cites as a model for how to create
successful mixed-use development out of an old industrial wasteland.

By
the mid-1980s, the 19th Century harbour, situated opposite the city
centre, had fallen into disuse. There were discussions at that time as
to what to do with the site. The initial proposals were to turn the
space into an overspill area for social housing – the idea being that
residents would be temporarily moved to housing in the old harbour while
their neighbourhoods were being regenerated and upgraded.

Enter
Riek Bakker. When she was appointed head of the Rotterdam Development
Corporation, a municipal body in charge of stimulating development, she
was shocked at the lack of vision for what she saw as a very important
piece of the city. She believed that this site could be turned into
something much more important for the entire city. She believed that the
city centre should expand to the south side of the river and that that
would help unify the city – why should half the city’s residents not
have a city centre, she asked. And she had the vision to keep the
control of the project firmly in the hands of the municipality, rather
than selling off land to the highest bidder. It is largely because of
her vision, spanning more than two decades and outliving almost every
politician, that the Kop van Zuid has developed into one of the most
desirable places to live and work in the city.

However, in the
1980s and early 90s, when the site was still a derelict wasteland, she
had quite a monumental task convincing people that this was a project
worth undertaking. Rotterdam South was the ‘bad’ side of the river;
residents viewed it in a negative light and developers were more
attracted to sites in the city centre, or close to the main railway
station. Ms. Bakker believed that a new iconic bridge was vital to the
success of the project and to the future health of the city. Building a
new bridge would not only link the development to the existing city
centre, but it would serve to help physically unify the city. However,
the general feeling within Rotterdam at that time was that there were
enough river crossings for the existing traffic needs. A bridge was also
going to be costly. But Ms. Bakker persisted. She even organised a gala
‘bridges ball,’ modelled after the famous skyscraper ball in New York
in the 1930s. Guests arrived in costumes depicting famous bridges from
around the world. One sad-looking individual appeared dressed as a boat,
illustrating the idea that a ferry would be insufficient to make the
site work. Finally, Ms. Bakker arrived dressed as a one-column bridge,
the iconic structure which would eventually be the Erasmus Bridge which
opened in 1996. It was events such as these, as well as continually
convincing politicians, planners, developers and the public that taking
the long-term approach and building a high-quality urban environment was
the way to go, that garnered support for the project from all sectors
of the city.

The Erasmus Bridge represented a turning point in
the project. It is an interesting study in and of itself, and I would
like to take a moment to discuss two specific goals which the bridge was
meant to achieve. The first goal relates to a wider goal of the Kop van
Zuid, and that is the idea of the undivided city. Despite its early
critics, the bridge has become an important transport link which brings
Rotterdam South closer to the rest of the city. It helped to save the
city’s tram network by linking the then disjoined northern and southern
sections via a new line over the bridge, and since it has opened, new
lines have been built in Rotterdam South. For thousands of residents, it
represents a tangible benefit to their daily lives through better
transport links.

But the bridge also represented an important
statement that the city (and – because the national government helped
fund it by declaring it a ‘key project’ of national importance – the
Dutch government) believed that this project would work and that it
would be a safe place to invest. Another goal was to attract private
development and city-centre functions such as culture and leisure, to
the Kop van Zuid and the south more generally. In this way, the iconic
nature of the bridge is very important – a simple structure, or a
tunnel, would not have made that powerful statement.

In the end,
both these goals were achieved, and the opening of the bridge
represented the key turning point for the Kop van Zuid. While the
private-sector commercial uptake was initially slow (many of the first
offices were government or quasi-government, such as the national
telecom company or the Port of Rotterdam), the second half of the 2000s
saw new developer-led projects such as the Maas Tower.

Housing
has proved to be more popular and an easier sell. The initial residents
who moved in in the late 1990s, felt like ‘pioneers’ because they were
living in a construction site in an area which was ‘off the middle-class
map’ for generations. The area quickly became a desirable middle-class
neighbourhood inhabited by professionals, many of whom work for the
government or the not-for-profit sector. The neighbourhood is popular
because of its infrastructure and transport links, location along the
water and the high-quality of the houses.

The last point is one
of the keys to the success of the Kop van Zuid. All parties involved
have maintained the vision and belief that if the development is to
succeed, it must be built well. This includes not only the quality of
the buildings, but an emphasis on the urban landscape. In some areas,
this is done very well, though the quaysides have yet to become popular
‘destinations’ largely because they are often cold, windswept and
isolated.

In addition to a focus on quality, there are other
lessons which cities can learn from Rotterdam. First, patience is key.
Redeveloping such large parts of the city takes decades and if it is to
be done right, an emphasis on quality and design is more important than a
quick fix. The Kop van Zuid is more than twenty years in the making,
and in the current economic climate, it might take another twenty for
all the sites to be filled. This relates to the second lesson: such
projects are bigger than the dreams of any one politician and shouldn’t
be used as a political football. The consensus achieved by Riek Bakker
and transcended political parties so that a change of government did not
mean a change of direction for the project. Third, infrastructure is
important. The Kop van Zuid is both well connected to the rest of the
city, and it serves to connect other parts of the city to each other.
This has not only the benefit of helping to make the development a
success, but also goes a long way to wider city-building as well. The
final lesson is that cities need to retain some degree of control over
these projects if they are to become a holistic and complete
neighbourhood, rather than a patchwork of one-off developments (see the
forthcoming article on Glasgow for more on that). The municipality of
Rotterdam has always been firmly in charge of the Kop van Zuid, and it
works with other actors, such as developers to complete specific
projects within it. In this way, the city is able to maintain its
long-term vision of the project, rather than those of developers who may
build what is profitable at that moment in time. While this is not
possible in every national context (the role of local and national
governments is much stronger in the Netherlands than in the Anglo-Saxon
world), some sort of leadership is necessary in order to see such a
monumental task through and avoid quick profits at the expense of
long-term success. As Ms. Bakker said during an interview: “an office or
a house won’t organise your infrastructure.”

Looking at it
through the lens of transforming a derelict part of the city into
something more valuable, and creating a high-quality urban space, the
Kop van Zuid can be seen as a success. However, if we look at it through
the lens of social justice and building a more equal city, we can be
more critical. While this is a topic for a future article, it is perhaps
worth pondering to what extend these types of economic and social
divisions (the Kop van Zuid is primarily an affluent space, after all)
are inherent to post-industrial, entrepreneurial forms of urban
development? The Kop van Zuid, with its social, as well as economic
aims, is better positioned to withstand this line of critique than other
waterfronts. However it too alters rather than reduces the spatial
divisions within the city. While I have outlined many lessons which
planners and politicians can learn from Rotterdam when redeveloping
waterfronts, this notion is an important caveat, particularly if the
vision is for a socially-just and inclusive city. So despite its
pleasant appearance and success in achieving many of its goals, we
should not assume that this project – grand as it may be – will increase
the wealth and opportunities for all inhabitants of the city.